I’m not a huge football fan, but for the past few years I’ve clicked on a game in October only to be repulsed by the sea of supplication. I don’t know what is more troubling, that NFL management thinks men who watch football will put up with this emasculation of the sport, or that they might be right. Either way, this is clearly a case of feminists realizing that they couldn’t experience manly pride and therefore deciding to extinguish it.

For those not in the US you can get a small sense for the degree of madness here and here. If you are in the US and haven’t seen this, flip on one of the games this Sunday and you will see what I’m talking about.

88 Responses to Feminist territory marking, NFL style.

Has anyone written on the strange trend in the 1970s and 1980s of local stations lauding their female sportscasters who “tore down walls” and broke “taboos” by going into the men’s locker rooms to report from among the naked and half-naked athletes after games? It’s a similar phenomenon from an earlier era.

A topic I am quite knowledgeable in. The pink ribbon campaign is as tied to a personality as the Livestrong campaign, and both Lance Armstrong and Susan G. Komen are two of the biggest pieces of shit on the planet today.

Since someone mentioned it: that Ehrenreich article is in her book Bright-Sided. It’s an excellent look at how the New Age, positive-thinking movement emerged as an overreaction to the absolutist predestination of Calvinism. Unfortunately, as an atheist, she only sees the two extremes, and never realizes that traditional Christianity represents the sensible middle ground between gloomy fatalism and cheery positivism. But she does a great job of savaging the ribbon/walk/think-happy-thoughts nonsense that permeates our thinking (and our churches) today, which has found its final ridiculous expression in the Facebook Cause — “‘Like’ this to show your support for not clubbing baby seals!” She points out how people undergoing loss can’t even go through the natural stages of grief because they’re badgered to stay positive and think happy thoughts all the time. That’s how you fight bad things in the new religion of Oprahism — by denying them. Good book.

You know, I never looked into it personally, but I’ve been getting the feeling for a few years that there was something fishy about what appear to me to be a lot of concentration on breast cancer. To be fair, however, Leukemia, AIDS, Brain, Liver all fair better than breast cancer per new case introduced; however, it is the money per case that goes towards Cervical cancer and Ovarian cancer that is most striking. There does seem to be a general imbalance overall, considering how low down prostrate cancer falls, although that is somewhat understandable, given its low rate death by percentage of cases.

I find it terribly morbid to get out the ruler and measure on the basis of deaths, these aren’t just numbers on a page after all, but something dark has taken place in the western mind that has been discussed more than once. The best discussion of the topic (though among many neoliberals it is a heretical text) is “The Closing of the American Mind”.

You only need to look at the things that have gone mainstream since the 90s: Deepak Chopra, James Ray, Tony Robbins, magical thinking, alternative medicine, fucking CHIROPRACTORS, then you get into the big topics (immunization hysteria being the most obvious).

This is a sensitive topic to me as I care for an ill sibling. How can you convince someone who is sick that their healing stones aren’t doing shit when the culture all around them is cheering them on?

Feminism, far from helping women, has actually exposed the full extent of female inferiority (mental, moral, intellectual, economic) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.

In the old days, women knew how to discreetly avoid tasks they would be ill-suited for. Now, they are encouraged to go in, demonstrate incompetence, and then loudly proclaim success and oppression at the same time.

Keep in mind that I posted data that is 5 years old, before the NFL, Proctor and Gamble and Kraft got behind the Pink Ribbon campaign. It would not be unreasonable to double, perhaps triple the breast cancer numbers in the dataset.

ybm said, “This is a sensitive topic to me as I care for an ill sibling. How can you convince someone who is sick that their healing stones aren’t doing shit when the culture all around them is cheering them on?”

If you want to truly run your brain ragged studying the stupidity of people as a group when it comes to medicine and medical treatment, look no further than the medical system in China. I lived for years in China and my mind was forever numbed by experience of living among a population of people who continued to believe in “medical” techniques that have been demonstrated to have a no more impressive impact than a placebo.

I met a young woman in Hong Kong who had a master’s degree in human biology, worked in a medical career at a top hospital and still went running to a Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner whenever she herself was ill. Truly mind-boggling.

@ THF, look at the extension of the franchise and compare that to the extension of the public debt. That is what the socialists in the U.S. depend on, make more government dependent voters and buy them of with the death of the commons.

Sadly, the WNBA can not be bothered to wear blue ribbons? Also, considering that so few people actually care about the WNBA; it would not make a difference. Women will still get outspent on compared to men by government research grants.

Even in our own sports, we are told by feminists that we don’t matter.

The local minor league hockey team wore all pink jersey’s and painted the ice pink. It clear hockey is a sport for women. This is what they would call domination. They are rubbing our noses in their power, I don’t think it’s going to work out for them…..

It would be like insisting that men be the focus of female oriented spaces. Imagine how well that would go over. We’d be hearing about rape and “the patriarchy” until the apocalypse.

It’s a rearguard action. Second-wave feminists would be appalled at women being identified with the color pink.

(Which I just found out is actually not a color. Ah, the proof of female vacuity continues to gather. It’s science! Why else would we unconsciously select the only color that didn’t exist to symbolize women? “Women are not even shallow.” — Nietzsche)

Symbolism on this order, and the ostentatious indulgence of it by cowardly mass enterprises, are the last twitches of a moribund ideology. At one time a laughable PR concession would have been considered insulting by militant feminists. They’d want half the NFL made up of women to be truly equal. Now they go, “Awww, isn’t it cute how much these macho guys care for us!” Understand a victory when you see one.

Finally, the pink gloves and towels and hats are popular chiefly for aesthetic reasons. Pink is the only color not used on NFL uniforms for obvious reasons. It could be added everywhere for a month and create a vivid marker upon an already overloaded sensory milieu. With the fast cameras, graphics, surround sound, and hi-def pictures of the Ultimate Football Experience, hot pink is the only option available to cut through the hyperstimulation.

Yoking that unique visual opportunity to a moral cause was a masterstroke. Like all good liberals, they can satisfy their conscience for “having done their part” by “raising awareness.” They do nothing, sacrifice nothing of themselves, and still get to enjoy a sense of moral satisfaction. Win-win-win! The left is positively addicted to this sort of sugar high, which has led to the extinction of directly helping the neighbor in need directly in front of them. “I paid my taxes, I got a lump in my throat at a pink ribbon, so I am morally justified to cross the street when I see a bum. I did my part.”

I don’t know, in all fairness we should have LOTS of awareness of titty cancer. I think it would be better, however, if rather than having football players wear pink (which does not really make me think much about titties) that instead all the NFL cheerleaders could perform topless. THAT would make me think about titties a whole lot more, and how important it is to protect such a valuable national resource. Additionally, I think it would be better if, rather than wearing pink ribbons, all women of a “6” rating or above would walk around topless for a couple of days. What better way to make sure that we men properly appreciate the need to beat back titty cancer? Yes, I will join the fight against titty cancer! Now show me what I’m fighting for! Show them now! What? You won’t? Why not? Don’t you want to stamp out titty cancer? Shame on you for not showing your titties, you ungrateful woman!

I don’t watch a lot of football anymore. For the action, I prefer basketball or soccer now. But this pink shit is one big giant supplication that … just … makes … me … want … to … vomit !!!

But what really, really pisses me off is the total lack of attention anywhere in sporting circles for the great big elephant in the men’s room: prostate cancer… but no one famous wants to sympathize with men who lose some or all of their sex lives from it. Why does that not surprise me?

Stamp out titty cancer! Make all attractive women walk around topless for a day so we know what we are fighting for!
On the other hand, all you uggos (especially you shebeast fatties) stay covered up. If giant fat uggos walk around showing their titties no one will want to stamp out titty cancer any more; they’ll just want more laws against public nudity. Obesity is also a major contributing factor to titty cancer, so if you are an orca uggo you are part of the problem. Quit eating the donuts and get to a gym you cancer magnet! Don’t you care about the titties? Shame on you!
Now all you hotties out there show us what we’re fighting for! And take one for the team! After all, don’t you want to stamp out titty cancer? Shame on you for not showing what we’re fighting for! Let the puppies breathe!

It’s hard for this one to bother me much. It’s not like the masculinity of players is in question and the NFL is the most popular and profitable professional sport in the country. Out of context with the rest of society, this is classic chivalry– a token deference granted from a position of strength. Or else it’s mere pandering in which case it’s no more emasculating than any other charity or sellout or marketing behavior.

Pink ribbons in the NFL have been going on on for some time now. And yeah, its sickening, sad, and disheartening all at once. When I see it, I wonder go myself- Do these SoBs even know the silly shit they are perpetuating??

I have always been taken aback by the hypocrisy that men’s sports are almost obligated to support women’s causes – such as breast cancer – but I have yet to see a women’s sporting body support a men’s cause.

I know tons of football fans and they would never give up football just to protest the pink ribbon bullshit.

However, if a significant number of men stopped watching ONLY in October, I think the message sent would be unmistakable. Listen to it on the radio. Or watch it in a sports bar if you have to. It’s only for 4 weeks.

Speaking as a retired armchair-quarterback, American Football is a source of constant amusement to most subjects of The Queen. Now, personally, I love it, – all that first-and-ten – but this is what they say: These big men are encased in protective padding in case they get hurt (boo-hoo); play stops every few minutes or even seconds, – compare a game of soccer where frequently the players are running non-stop for forty-five minutes; and finally and most amusingly you cannot play a game without a bevy of strippers, sorry cheerleaders, parading their wares. At least it is clear the NFL is all heart – please give generously to a worthy cause.

but this is what they say: These big men are encased in protective padding in case they get hurt (boo-hoo); play stops every few minutes or even seconds, – compare a game of soccer where frequently the players are running non-stop for forty-five minutes;

Lack of understanding is the culprit here, as it is with Americans and soccer, I think.

American football is a fundamentally strategic game of set plays which allows for atheticism and tactics to take place within those set strategic plays. Soccer, like basketball and hockey, is a fundamentally tactical game that emphasizes taking advantage of opportunities presented and a high degree of improvisation while having an overarching strategy element and a small number of set plays. The “pure athleticism” of non-stop games like basketball, soccer and hockey is higher than it is in a more strategic game like American football or even a more purely skill-based game (where skill is contrasted to pure athleticism) like baseball — that’s certainly true. But while it’s true that soccer players and rugby players don’t wear body armor, it’s also true that they don’t have 300-350+ pound guys tackling them to the ground in packs over and over and over again — I don’t think those relatively (compared to American football players) skinny chaps playing English football — and even the sturdier ones playing rugby — would make it very far without injury in American football without body armor, never mind their pure athletic stamina. This is also why so many American football players get hurt often enough, even with the body armor and helmets on.

For the topic at hand, I don’t find it that disturbing. It’s a bit irritating, but I I don’t see it as a major colonization within the NFL. I tend to agree with the poster above that this is more a case of garden variety chivalry coming from a context of strength.

it might be this bad in the US but europe is not far behind, i heard an add on the radio this morning (ireland) for a seminar on equality in marriage presented by a man no less, ill be attending with a tray of eggs if you catch my drift……………..

Brendan: Protective armor means that unprotected parts/functions will take greater stress. I guess rugby players get a lot of bruises and some broken bones and concussions, whereas American football players destroy connective tissue more often.

I don’t see much of a problem with this. Breast cancer is much more virulent and fatal to a younger cohort than prostrate cancer is. Women get it at a younger age and die more often.

Prostrate cancer affects older men and has a much higher survival rate. Consider that both Rudy Giuliani and Gen. David Petraeus have been diagnosed in recent years, went on with their business and are still alive.

For the topic at hand, I don’t find it that disturbing. It’s a bit irritating, but I I don’t see it as a major colonization within the NFL. I tend to agree with the poster above that this is more a case of garden variety chivalry coming from a context of strength.

And just to be clear, I’m talking about the perception and the surface narrative, I’m not making a statement one way or the other about the accusations from ybm.

why can men just not be left alone? Read a story recently about a female competitive skier who wants to ski with the boys. Oh, and in doing so, she wants to gain an unsanctioned edge against the females she also wants to compete against (getting to ski the course more than a week before the female event).

ten alphas pumped and dumped me
so i considred myself a ten
told all the betas “let’s wait and see,”
and now i am a single old dried up hen.
empowered today with my haughty blogs
calling on men to man up everywhere
where cocks once penetratd my hole for logs
jesus now forgives me via my prayer
please jesus please heal my sore butthole
i repent so send a beta provider my way
a good manned-up man with a good soul
the ones i ignored back in the day
but now i desrve me a nice nice moneyed guy
to pay for dates while i make him wait ’til i die.

to make him pay for what i gave away for free
back when i was younger hotter tighter
no longer can he butthext the reformed me
like they did when i was fifty pounds lighter.

Choosing not to give birth or breast feed, abortion, and the pill are three causes of breast cancer. How do we manage to have a month of breast cancer awareness without exposing these three avoidable causes of the terrible disease? The hypocritical lopsidedness of leftist social causes is exposed every October.

That’s one way it’s happened. It’s funny how women have latched on to “pink”, while men haven’t done anything comparable in the least vis a vis “blue”. And we’re supposed to be the retard sexists pushing outmoded stereotypes holding women back, yada yada yada.

Jack Kammer had an interesting historical tidbit about football in If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make the Rules?: Back when the forward pass was first introduced into football, it was quite controversial, being thought by many to be too sissy. Of course it’s impossible to imagine the whole spectacle today without it.

So it was basically all downhill from there, straight to this era of the hunky pretty-boy QB who everyone else has to protect at all costs, the Male Honorary Princess. The whole debacle only could have ended in “pink”.

You only need to look at the things that have gone mainstream since the 90s: Deepak Chopra, James Ray, Tony Robbins, magical thinking, alternative medicine, fucking CHIROPRACTORS, then you get into the big topics (immunization hysteria being the most obvious).

Do you know how “pasteurized”(and Louis Pasteur had nothing to do with the process) came to be commonly used in America? Well, pasteurized milk tastes like s*** compared to normal milk so it didn’t sell. But control of pasteurization plants via “government permit” allows a powerful horizontal monopoly to control diary. So clearly, government mandated pasteurization and government “safety inspection” of pasteurization plants to maintain the club was necessary for public health. And so the federal government pointed it’s loaded gun at everyone. In dollars name.

Oh, and MSG, a drug? Why is it added to food? Cause it makes people want to eat the food! And then people get fat cause they are eating food that has drugs in it to make them want to eat it. This is very surprising. A puzzle buried in a riddle.

Who knows exactly WHAT random and completely selfish nonsense is causing so many people to be sick these days. But modern food practices are done with a complete and total disregard for public health. So I’m quite sure SOMETHING(s) are doing it.

People know they are being lied to and “sit down and suffer the rest of your life” or, better yet, form the English, “you is not sick, you is whiner, in my day, no whiner, no problem” is not an acceptable answer. Indeed, food has changed beyond all scope and measure from fifty years ago, but I suppose that has NO EFFECT AT ALL. Because. Ya know. Massive changes all over the place done by selfish sociopaths = NO HARM AT ALL.

King A. (Matthew King)It’s a rearguard action. Second-wave feminists would be appalled at women being identified with the color pink.

Second wave feminists started their own football leagues, beginning in the 1960’s and continuing on, in various forms, to the present day. Wikipedia has some links in this article on one of the women’s football leagues:

In the early 1960s, many women thought that sports in the US were sexist and needed to shift in another direction, moving beyond the stereotype that women were passive. This sentiment formed the background for the women’s football league that was started in order to prove that women had the power to do what men did, with hopes that people would enjoy women’s football as much as they did men’s. In 1965, the name changed to its WPFL incarnation. Since there were no college women’s football teams in the US, most of their athletes came from basketball, rugby, and international football (soccer). After a few years, the sport began to fade.

There have been a handful of women kickers in high school, and possibly college, football teams. More of a stunt than any colonization. Just as there are not that many women truly qualified to be police officers, there are effectively none who can hope to participate in football save on special teams.

However, the notion that this is a rearguard action is very questionable, because “pinking” October serves the feminine imperative quite nicely. The men still get to play their sport, they simply are required to do so on terms set by the feminine imperative; giving priority to Women’s Health over their own sense of propriety, for a start. And plenty of women who regard themselves as “traditional” or “not feminist” are completely on board with “pinking” October. The local non-denominational Christian school has “pinked” itself with banners, crepe paper, etc. and apparently is encouraging boys to wear pink shirts with some “fight cancer” logo / slogan on them. At least, that’s what I have seen driving by the place.

In a sense, this comes down to the question asked by Vladimir Lenin – “Kto, Ktom”, or “Who, Whom”. As in, “Who does what to whom?”. In the case of “pinking” October, who demands, and who submits? Who orders, and who obeys? Who is in charge, and who is not?

The French revolution of the 1790’s is the prototype for many that followed (Russia notably) and in every case, as the revo rolls on, some of the early participants wind up labeled “counter-revolutionary” because they decide things have gone too far. It never matters. Whatever form the “new system” takes, it demands ever more power, until it finally reaches a failure point.

Feminism in the US has not yet reached the failure point. “Pink” October is a demonstration of power – who orders, who obeys – and not at all a rearguard action. The pink ice in some school hockey rinks is but one example of how the feminine imperative continues to colonize every social space it can.

Also, fyi, the MLB has promoted the Home Run Challenge to fund prostrate cancer research for more than a decade, maybe almost two now. It seemed like a bigger deal back when it was new — as a casual fan, I can’t recall hearing about it the last few years.

“Pink” has invaded baseball, too. The pink bats are relatively recent, and, while annoying, it’s only one or two games (one weekend?) out of 162. By comparison, Jackie Robinson Day, when all the players wear #42, is but one day per season.

I went to a UNLV college football game last year, and the cheerleaders actually WERE strippers.

whatever says:
October 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm

The nut spouting conspiracy theory. Did you read the breast cancer article? It discusses the environmental factors that are causing a rise in breast cancer, pollution and water contamination being chiefly among them. You draw a farcical and hilarious comparison between food and the sick, and then you lecture someone that spends his summer months in France about the benefits of raw milk.

Do you know why raw milk is banned in the US? Because American industrial agriculture has so few safety regulations and pollution controls that everything is contaminated, from Listeria to Salmonella to Tuberculosis. I wouldn’t let people drink poison either, but instead of railing against the horrible condition of farms you dream up a conspiracy theory. Target your sights on Cargill, Tyson and Smithfield and the lack of regulations due to libtard stripping of safety protocols from the USDA and the EPA.

Fortunately there is enough overlap that an advancement in breast cancer treatment will help in treatment of a lot of other cancers including prostate and testicular. So the funding problems really shouldn’t be on a basis of man vs. woman, more of “Capitalism vs. Science”

If people really cared as much about the sick as they pretend they do when they join the Pink Ribbon, they’d be putting their money toward the underfunded FATAL cancers of pancreatic and Esophageal.

ybmFortunately there is enough overlap that an advancement in breast cancer treatment will help in treatment of a lot of other cancers including prostate and testicular. So the funding problems really shouldn’t be on a basis of man vs. woman, more of “Capitalism vs. Science”

Yes and no. I’m not an oncologist, but a few years back when a relative was dying of prostate cancer I did look into the then-state of the art. It is interesting and dismaying when one researches medical issues to find out where the “edge” is, the point at which we just don’t know much, and sometimes it doesn’t take long to get there.

My complaint about Big Pink is this: there’s only so many researchers in oncology to fund. So most of the money raised by Big Pink nowadays goes to “awareness” .But that’s basically a form of advertising, and really there’s only so much of that required. The stats on cervical cancer are very interesting, because that cancer is (a) mostly caused by HPV and (b) generally easy to treat if detected early enough through a PAP smear. Yet “cancer awareness” for women pretty much begins and ends above the waist and below the neck. The stats on testicular cancer are even worse, and that is easy to detect as well. There’s effectively no “awareness” on any cancer aside from women’s breasts (the fact that men with hormone problems can get that cancer is virtually unknown – thus male breast tumors are probably all of 1% of detected cancers, but the 5-year survival rate is very poor, because they usually are not detected until the tumor is rather advanced – because “everyone knows men don’t get breast cancer” so that lump must be a wart or something).

If all the money is going to go for “awareness”, then let’s do “awareness” right. Of course, if we did “awareness” we’d have to tell young women the truth about HPV and some other sexually transmitted diseases, and then that would lead to the truth about promiscuity’s price, and we can’t go there. Because the feminine imperative would not like that.

If people really cared as much about the sick as they pretend they do when they join the Pink Ribbon, they’d be putting their money toward the underfunded FATAL cancers of pancreatic and Esophageal.

Were I medical dictator, I would take a lot of the money BIg Pink raises and use it to fund less favored research for one or at most two years; the venture-capital approach. Find someone off of the beaten path, and given them the resources they need to test their hypothesis. If it fails, ok, move on. If it works, something great might be obtained. Pancreatic and esophageal would be high on the list of things to charge against. But they aren’t as cue as tits.

Men get breast cancer. In case you missed that I’ll say it again. Men get breast cancer. The problem is that because most people think ‘Breast cancer happens in breasts. Men don’t have breasts. Men cannot therefore get breast cancer’ that little or no publicity is given to male breast cancer and all, or very nearly all information on breast cancer talks about female sufferers reinforcing this stereotype.

And as for prostate cancer, there is more than one type of prostate cancer. The most common type does affect older men and is relatively slow in developing, so that more men die with it than of it, but there is a much nastier variat of prostate cancer that is invasive and will cause death unless treated. The former chief constable (chief of police) for West Yorkshire, Colin Sampson, died as a result of this not so long ago.

Except it’s fucking true you dumb ass. You sure are clueless about the way the US system works. Big Agriculture paid off the politicians to pass off regulations that require pasteurization of milk. Pastuerized milk takes a lot longer to spoil then raw milk, so it can be produced at large central facilities and shipped all over the country.

In many States, raw milk is illegal, and dairy cow farmers have been getting raided by FDA agents and arrested and have their assets and property’s seized for selling “un-pasteurized, public health threatening” milk.

You draw a farcical and hilarious comparison between food and the sick, and then you lecture someone that spends his summer months in France about the benefits of raw milk.

Wait, whatever posts about how the American Agricultural corporations sell food that has been adulterated, devitalized, contaminated and downright bad for human health, and you call him a conspiracy nut – than reference how you KNOW about the benefits of raw milk?

Because American industrial agriculture has so few safety regulations and pollution controls that everything is contaminated, from Listeria to Salmonella to Tuberculosis. I wouldn’t let people drink poison either, but instead of railing against the horrible condition of farms you dream up a conspiracy theory.

In which you completely state the problem and miss the entire point whatever was making, because you’re so obsessed with denouncing “conspiracy theorists!” Try and follow along –

Big Agricultural corporations produce milk in large facilities and feedlot style conditions for the cows. Contamination and pollution are huge problems, but pasteurization mitigates it.

So one goes to an American grocery store, WE HAVE NO OPTION. We only have rows and rows of various brands of pasteurized milk from Big Ag corporations. We don’t have the option of buying raw milk from the local dairy farm, where we can actually go there and look at the conditions of the cows and the facilities, and purchase the milk freshly milked that very same day.

This is precisely how Big Corporations buy cartel powers in the American market place. Their substandard crap product has no competition from the far superior milk produced from small farms, the kind that you say you know all about from your visits to France.

In one post, you deride whatever for “conspiracy theory” and in just a few sentences later you talk as if you know all about the superiority of raw milk.

No, that would be Corporatism…aka 21st century fascism. We haven’t been a truly capitalist country in over a century. Our system is run by all the Big corporations – Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Healthcare, Big Insurance etc., who pay off all our politicians to get the laws and regulations passed in their favor.. All of the “regulators” in the government bureaucracies who enforce the regulations are usually former executives and board members of these Big corporations, who get appointed to the regulatory agencies who then go after the small business competitions with the regulations their paid off politicians pass of as laws – like pasteurized milk. It happens with both Republicans and Democrat administrations. They call it the “revolving door” between big corporations and the regulatory agencies. It’s not “Nuts conspiracy theory.” It’s conspiracy truth. Here bro, see for yourself: http://salem-news.com/articles/january302011/monsanto-fda-ms.php

Look ybm, I like 85% of your posts here at Dalrock’s, but some of the shit you write here is just ignorant, the likes of Alek Novy have got you thinking that anyone in the manosphere references anything “conspiratorial” as a nut or a kook.

It’s not conspiracy theory to point out that our Government has been bought and sold by all these Big Corporations. It’s conspiracy facts, not theory. When guys like you immediately denounce guys like whatever pointing these things out as “nuts” you’re in fact derailing guys who are pointing out the truth.

The reason why breast cancer gets so much press and attention is two fold – one, we live in a Matriarchy, where women’s needs and concerns are of paramount importance, and two, because breast cancer is the most profitable cancer to screen for and treat – Mammography machines are expensive and the techs who operate them require special training. Most other cancers don’t require such expensive procedures and machines to detect, therefore they are not as profitable an industry.

The nut spouting conspiracy theory. Did you read the breast cancer article? It discusses the environmental factors that are causing a rise in breast cancer, pollution and water contamination being chiefly among them. You draw a farcical and hilarious comparison between food and the sick, and then you lecture someone that spends his summer months in France about the benefits of raw milk.

Do you know why raw milk is banned in the US? Because American industrial agriculture has so few safety regulations and pollution controls that everything is contaminated, from Listeria to Salmonella to Tuberculosis. I wouldn’t let people drink poison either, but instead of railing against the horrible condition of farms you dream up a conspiracy theory. Target your sights on Cargill, Tyson and Smithfield and the lack of regulations due to libtard stripping of safety protocols from the USDA and the EPA.

So you know that raw milk is better, but just not in the case of American milk. Cause that would force you to admit to a “conspiracy”. That is greedy sociopaths after money. So instead, you make up some elaborate story that makes no sense.

Two facts are especially amusing:
1.The American government is acting to protect the American people’s health from bad milk because of lousy American safety standards!

2.The American government has to do this because it allows bad food to be sold and has no concern to enforce safety standards because it doesn’t care about the American people’s health!

So why are they acting to protect people’s health if they have no concern for people’s health?

It’s nice that you have some barrier in your mind that prevents you from admitting actual malice on the part of the American government. Given their behavior, that pretty much makes you a total nutcase. I myself am very comfortable believing some people are extremely greedy and don’t care who they hurt. Yep. I see that. Totally fine with it.

Then what you are railing against is Capitalism. Not that you will admit that.

I have no idea what FDA agents in SWAT gear have to do with capitalism. Nutcase.

Not Capitalism, ybm, that would be Corporatism – aka 21st century fascism. We haven’t been a truly capitalist country in over a century. Our system is run by all the Big corporations – Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Healthcare, Big Insurance etc., who pay off all our politicians to get the laws and regulations passed in their favor.. All of the “regulators” in the government bureaucracies who enforce the regulations are usually former executives and board members of these Big corporations, who get appointed to the regulatory agencies who then go after the small business competitions with the regulations their paid off politicians pass of as laws – like pasteurized milk. It happens with both Republicans and Democrat administrations. They call it the “revolving door” between big corporations and the regulatory agencies. It’s not “Nuts conspiracy theory.” It’s conspiracy truth. Here, see for yourself: http://salem-news.com/articles/january302011/monsanto-fda-ms.php

Look ybm, I like 85% of your posts here at Dalrock’s, but some of the shit you write here is just ignorant, the likes of Alek Novy have got you thinking that anyone in the manosphere references anything “conspiratorial” as a nut or a kook.

It’s not conspiracy theory to point out that our Government has been bought and sold by all these Big Corporations. It’s conspiracy facts, not theory. When guys like you immediately denounce guys like whatever pointing these things out as “nuts” you’re in fact derailing guys who are pointing out the truth.

Eating a lifetime worth of Big Ag food products is a huge factor in the rise of all cancers.

The reason why breast cancer gets so much press and attention is two fold – one, we live in a Matriarchy, where women’s needs and concerns are of paramount importance, and two, because breast cancer is the most profitable cancer to screen for and treat – Mammography machines are expensive and the techs who operate them require special training. Most other cancers don’t require such expensive procedures and machines to detect, therefore they are not as profitable an industry.

Stamp out titty cancer… and of course the subject of milk had to come up! Raw or Pastuerized? I say raw, and straight from the source! Pop ‘em out ladies, we’re thirsty! Let those NFL cheerleaders/strippers feed the masses! That will make sure all us lusty men with our uncontrollable urges will be loving those titties!

Had a care dealership advertisement in my hands today.The shifty kind where they put glue on key on a page and claim you’ve won a car,it was on pink paper and solicited donations to women’s breast cancer.Even the shysters are wising up to the scam potential.
Yeah, it’s a scam that tugs at chivalrous heartstrings.
I hate those that prey upon goodwill,just like Christ did.

Why don’t they just find out what is causing the breast cancer rather than finding a so called “cure”. Breast cancer isn’t\wasn’t common in many Asian countries due to a non western diet. I don’t donate to any of these campaigns. Just money for big pharma. I read stories of physicians making good progress on breast cancer patients, but because they didn’t follow the established line, they were blackballed. If there was a cure, they would supress it. No money to pay the ceo’s.

Men get breast cancer. In case you missed that I’ll say it again. Men get breast cancer.

I hate to get in the way of your facts with more facts but female soldiers dying in combat account for a higher percentage of combat deaths than male breast cancer victims amongst total breast cancer deaths. ~450/40000 deaths/year from breast cancer are male.

Can’t we try to fund cures in roughly the same proportions as people die from the conditions? Looking at cancer funding per death and cancer funding per case, and both breast and prostate cancer are dramatically overfunded in relative terms. The everything-is-always-most-oppressive-towards-women crowd even seems to have forgotten ovarian cancer which appears slightly underfunded, though I’d argue that pancreatic, esophageal, and liver cancers are were we need to be targeting more money.

Football is a sport for men and more men watch it than women so shouldn’t the NFL promote prostate cancer awareness? That breast cancer is more fatal to a younger cohort as Sp5 mentioned is not the point.

Players get hit with fines if they wear a pair of mis-matched shoelaces that have not been approved by the NFL and now they have to put up with all this pink?

Ha! Funny you mention this. I spent Sunday dinner over at my mom’s while one of the games was on. And she said SHE was TIRED of seeing all these huge men rocking pink shoes and arm sleeves! Not too surprising though, because believe it or not, my mom is from the pre-feminist generation and she has taught me more Red Pill truths than you’d believe a woman capable of doing.

I mean, a lot of the ‘Roissyisms’ are things my mom (and my dad and older bros. for that matter) taught me growing up. And I believed it, too—until Churchianity hoodwinked me….

i brought this pink ribbon thing into question on yahoo ask.com,and was attacked by the most foul mouthed pro feminist morons i have ever encountered,i am a 35 year fan of the nfl but the number of women in the crowd has quadrupled,and this cannot be good for the sport,it makes sense,women have all the good jobs here in california,so they can afford such luxuries,feminism needs to be put in check,leave the nfl out of it.

But but but… The Cowboys and the entire NFL Wore Pink to show their loyalty and support to women everywhere – they are sensitive, caring men – they aren’t sexual harassers – AND child abusers… are they?! ~

More political blackmail using racism, sexism, harassment, abuse, discrimination, hate… now targeting the $ports industries. I look forward to the day when the headlines highlight a judge/lawyer/activist getting prosecuted under the same kangaroo court, ‘politically correct’ laws which s/he used to ruin so many others.

[can the NFL stop wearing pink now? – How about let’s go with Blue for Prostrate Cancer Awareness in 2014/2015.]